Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,651 Year: 4,908/9,624 Month: 256/427 Week: 2/64 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thread Reopen Requests
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 165 of 305 (192352)
03-18-2005 5:57 PM


Request reopen thread
Deposition and erosion of sediments.
I have some time to post now.
Adminnemooseus: Thanks for closing it when you did, by the way.
Also, if you think it better to go to a Great Debate format, since as soon as the thread is reopened I'm sure to be swamped by even more rebuttals than are already waiting for me, I may be very open to the idea in very short order.
Also, are topics on this thread open to general comment? Percy for instance as well as some others made some interesting remarks quite some time back about the evolutionist domination on this forum.
Faith
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2005 05:58 PM

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 166 of 305 (192369)
03-18-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Percy
06-14-2003 2:52 PM


Evo dominance at this site
Naturally I agree with Irish Rocky, but it is becoming obvious that we're making it damn difficult for Creationists to participate there. They sort of get a month or two to see if they can get a feel for the nature of science, start to understand some scientific principles, and get into the habit of supporting arguments with evidence, and if they don't then we just gradually turn up the pressure until they're forced into misbehavioral patterns that cause discplinary actions that eventually influence them to leave, or they just leave on their own.
I haven't been here long, and I have to admit that I'm on the verge of leaving much of the time (not at the moment), and twice since I originally registered have in fact left, the first time for three years, the second time for a couple of weeks or so. In both cases the reason was the insupportable attitudes of some of my opponents. I'm actually a veteran of battles with abusive opponents in internet discussions and handle them pretty well IMHO, so it does take some pondering to explain why this site is so hard to take that I lose interest. And this in spite of the fact that the moderation here is quite good and much appreciated by me.
There's no reason why we should tolerate illogic and ignorance, but Creationists can only maintain their beliefs if they have healthy doses of both. Their goal is the defense of their religion, not the advancement of science. The prominent Creationists defend their religion through the construction of pseudoscientific arguments, and they feel good about their accomplishments because their work bolsters the religious beliefs of those of their faith, which was their goal. And while science suffers by their efforts, as much as they might care about science they care much more about their religion.
I would start off by suggesting that the above attitude so stacks the deck against creationists that it makes me feel like there's hardly any point in beginning to talk to you or anybody else here. The wall of prejudice that greets us would discourage the most intrepid visitor here. While in practice people have managed to be polite most of the time, this underlying prejudice is always there and always felt to be there and bursts out at times to proportions that are far beyond any actual provocation just because they ARE fueled by this prejudice. I do believe it also colors how a person's posts are read so that it is very hard to get an objective reading of what I am trying to say. Since you go on to say that you are puzzled why you have basically the same problem with the scientifically knowledgeable creationists that you have with us less knowledgeable ones, I would venture the suggestion that some of what posters here consider to be scientific thinking is really shot through with unexamined and indeed unrecognized prejudices that nobody can be expected to tolerate for long. This is a strong impression but I probably wouldn't be able to prove it.
I can't possibly speak for other creationists, and again I haven't been here long enough to know if what you are saying is true of some who visit here, but I almost have to laugh at the juxtaposition of the attitude expressed in that paragraph with your earnest desire to make this a more balanced debate site. Yes, it's all there in that paragraph and it's so ingrained I see no solution to it. Creationists will either take their chances in this fundamentally hostile environment or they won't, but it should be acknowledged up front that it IS hostile to us, ferociously in some cases. The contempt is so thick you could suffocate in it. Here, I'll break it down a little:
There's no reason why we should tolerate illogic and ignorance, but Creationists can only maintain their beliefs if they have healthy doses of both.
That's certainly a case of begging the question right off the bat. We might as well go home. You've dispensed with the whole creationist claim at the getgo, which is really how all the evolutionists here and everywhere deal with it. You so absolutely totally believe that creationism is false and no doubt its religious underpinnings as well that you don't even bother to make a pretense of giving the benefit of the doubt, or have a moment's doubt yourself that ONLY illogic and ignorance can support creationist reasoning. I'll be fair to YOU and assume that you've arrived at this conclusion from intelligent considerations of your own however. You do totally believe that science is on your side. You are in fact incapable of thinking anything else. So is every other evolutionist here. Therefore the creationist is ignorant. QED.
Their goal is the defense of their religion, not the advancement of science.
Again, not speaking for anyone but myself, MY goal is the reconciliation of my religion with science, as I am convinced that true science discovers the rationality of the universe made by the rational God of the Bible and if it contradicts Him it is wrong. I don't expect to be able to prove this easily, and maybe I can't at all, certainly not to people who think they've arrived at their conclusions THROUGH science, but I do think I recognize the irrationalities in evolutionism and am very far from basing this view on my religious beliefs. I know some here think this is about knowledge of science, but no, there are plenty of creationist scientists and you don't give them any more respect than those of us who aren't scientifically trained. As shown in your very next statement:
The prominent Creationists defend their religion through the construction of pseudoscientific arguments, and they feel good about their accomplishments because their work bolsters the religious beliefs of those of their faith, which was their goal. And while science suffers by their efforts, as much as they might care about science they care much more about their religion.
You know, it is one thing to believe creationists are wrong on scientific grounds, it is another thing and an EXTREMELY offensive thing, and in fact a violation of all civilized standards of discourse, to denigrate your opponents' integrity by imputing cheap motives to them as you do in the above paragraph. You are saying that they are content with lies, that they are so morally corrupt they have no dedication to honesty and truth. That's pretty low stuff you are slinging there, but I doubt that would occur to you. The only fair position would be to give the same benefit of the doubt and same basic respect to them, the same assumption of integrity and honesty, and basic intelligence and logical ability as well, that you would expect from opponents yourself, but that is apparently an impossibility because of your absolute unbending conviction of the rightness of your scientific views. This is why this forum can never be balanced.
I don't know what we're to do. This board is now dominated by evolutionists when the goal was to have some balance. But how can there be balance if board administration is determined that the primary component of any argument be evidence. The rhetorical arguments that are more the realm of philosophy and religion don't carry much weight here.
I'm not sure what all is involved in this, but I would say that I've had the impression that you [edit: meaning not you personally necessarily but evolutionists here in general] dismiss actual evidence from being considered as evidence just out of your own preconceived notions at this site. Nothing the Bible says is evidence at all here, but that is absurd. Believe me, I know how adamant and ingrained this prejudice is, and I have NO hope of ever cracking it, false though I know it is, so I won't even venture an argument at this point. A creationist can only sit back and marvel at the airtight system arrayed against us.
I often ponder this problem...
Given that my initial goal when I created the site was balance it disappoints me that the board is probably gaining a reputation as a pro-evoultion site. I suppose that's unavoidable, but I prefer to think of this as a pro-science site. It puzzles me that we can't even reach agreement about proper scientific arguments with the Creationists who appear to know a lot of science.
No answers, I guess, just some musings.
And I probably haven't contributed much help either, though I do think I have the right diagnosis of the problem. I can't help but be touched and appreciative of your sincere desire to have a balanced debate site and your concern about the problem however.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2005 08:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 06-14-2003 2:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2005 9:26 PM Faith has replied
 Message 168 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2005 9:36 PM Faith has replied
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 03-19-2005 8:11 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 169 of 305 (192404)
03-18-2005 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by crashfrog
03-18-2005 9:26 PM


(Faith)I would start off by suggesting that the above attitude so stacks the deck against creationists that it makes me feel like there's hardly any point in beginning to talk to you or anybody else here.
================
(CF) You're absolutely right - the deck is stacked against you, in the same way it's stacked against Flat Earthers, pherenologists, psychics, Holocaust deniers, supply-side economists, and everybody else promoting a position contradicted by the facts.
Yes, thanks a million for that confirmation of my point, Crash, and for confirming the fact that there really is no point in trying to talk to you or anybody else here, as I said one must feel from my side of the fence. Perhaps we have the foolish idea that maybe something would conceivably get through to somebody if we persist and maybe we'll try on that thin foolish hope, depending on how much stomach we have for the daily bath in scientific pretensions and arrogant contempt, or maybe just to try our debate skills in the worst of all possible test situations, or perhaps we'll just leave because we see that it's hopeless. I'm sure you wouldn't even characterize your statement as dogma, would you, but it sure is dogma, impenetrable, unyielding dogma. Some dogma has good support. Yours doesn't but then that's MY dogma.
Because that's what we talk about here. Facts, and what we can conclude from them. As Percy has said, creationists claim that not only is their model true on a religious basis, but also an evidentiary, scientific basis. We explore this claim here, so it's incumbent on creationists to defend that claim by showing evidence for creationism, in a manner consistent with the neutral guidelines represented by the scientific method.
If you only want scientists here, as I said, warn us all up front and the rest of us will go away. But as Percy admitted, even the scientifically knowledgeable creationists don't stick it out here. I believe my diagnosis is correct. Who wants the abuse? The veiled contempt? There's no constructive purpose in it.
But they never, ever do that. If there is any evidence for creationism it has yet to be presented, and none of the rest of us are aware of it. If you have some we'd love to see it.
I'm sorry, but I am very sure, although I haven't followed all the discussions here, that plenty of scientific evidence has been presented to you that you all defeat not by true counterevidence but on the basis of your prejudice. There is really very good evidence at many creationist sites, but you can't process it because it doesn't fit your paradigm. Of course it doesn't, it IS another paradigm. You aren't aware of it but your supposed scientific requirements are really just coercive categorical thinking.
We do want a balanced site. But you don't balance the truth with lies.
Nice line there. Has the ring of fine standards etc. Too bad it's a delusion. Keep it up and you'll be talking to other evolutionists exclusively in no time.
Creationists aren't allowed to balance the evidence for evolution with made-up falsehoods that support creationism. If they want to support creationism here they have to do it with evidence. The fact that there apparently isn't any evidence for creationism does put them at a disadvantage; but that's what happens when the model you're putting forth is wrong.
Well you're making your credo very clear. You don't even know it's a credo. You really think it's supported by evidence. As I said, I wouldn't even try against such a dug-in prejudice any more. (Oh maybe I would under certain circumstances, I'm known for my foolhardy feistiness, but I have certainly lost my enthusiasm for it). But my diagnosis remains accurate. It's the haughty arrogant contempt factor that prevents the balance from happening here. If other evolutionists here all share your view, we really should, rationally speaking, leave you to your pretensions.
(Faith) You know, it is one thing to believe creationists are wrong on scientific grounds, it is another thing and an EXTREMELY offensive thing, and in fact a violation of all civilized standards of discourse, to denigrate your opponents' integrity by imputing cheap motives to them as you do in the above paragraph. You are saying that they are content with lies, that they are so morally corrupt they have no dedication to honesty and truth.
==================
(CF) For a number of prominent creationists, we do actually have evidence of chicanery and deception.
How would that answer my point to Percy who made a generalization to ALL creationists? Besides, I don't trust any of you here to make a proper judgment as to anybody's motivations. I did run across a claim along the lines you are making somewhere on this site and thought how wrongly and unfairly reasoned it was. No deception was proved at all, simply an inability on the part of the interpreter to give the benefit of the doubt and imagine a more reasonable explanation.
We have evidence that they ignore data, pull quotes out of relevant context, defraud their supporters, offer arguments that they know are false, and so on and so forth.
I sincerely doubt that most of that would stand up to scrutiny but would come close to slander, because it comes out of your own preconceived notions about what is the important data, the relevant context, the valid argument for the point being made. A competing paradigm is going to focus on different data, different contexts, different arguments. Also, people make mistakes, believe it or not, may even forget what they said and have a new take on the subject and not be intending any deception whatever. Benefit of the doubt, benefit of the doubt. Not a whole lot of that around here. My own experience so far on this site is that I can't get across a very simple point at least partly because it's swallowed up in preconceptions, and I've even been accused of dastardly deeds when at worst I've worded something ineptly.
I'm sorry you're shocked to find out that we consider some - not all - of the prominent leaders on your side liars and charlatans, but we do have evidence that they are, and if you'd like to see it, we'll show it to you.
You're welcome to present it, but I have quite a bit on my plate at the moment so I can't promise giving it careful consideration right away.
The only fair position would be to give the same benefit of the doubt and same basic respect to them, the same assumption of integrity and honesty, and basic intelligence and logical ability as well, that you would expect from opponents yourself
I for one do give them that benefit of the doubt. But for many of them - Kent Hovind being the most prominent example - there's simply no escaping the conclusion that they are dishonest people. Again, we don't come to this conclusion simply because they're our opponents - that would be unfair - but because we have direct evidence of chicanery on their part.
I dread having to wade through your "evidence" but hey, OK, run it by me. I'll see what I can do with it. But please give me some time to get to it and through it.
For my part, I have no problem with creationists who admit that evolution is the best scientific model, that all the evidence points to it at this point, and that it represents the best scientific understanding we have about the history and diversity of life on Earth - but nonetheless insist that it isn't "really" true, that the evidence is God trying to test us, etc. You can't refute that argument. It's entirely possible that God created the world in such a way as to fool us. Whether or not he would have done so is a theological, not a scientific question.
If that is a common creationist belief I have to say that I reject it with heart and soul. As for evolutionism being the best understanding of the moment, while I can see why it is believed I don't think it is rational. As I said somewhere, even when I was still an atheist and earnestly tried to validate it to myself -- and at the time I took it on faith, I just wanted to prove it because I kept having doubts about it -- I could never find anything I could call actual proof for evolution. It was an extremely frustrating experience. I read all the popular stuff in the field, I even subscribed to Skeptical Inquirer for years, but somehow I never found proof for any of it. A lot of posturing and chest beating about scientific method and facts and evidence and so on, but no actual proof. I have not lost my respect for scientific method and logical argument by any means, in fact I believe my respect has been enhanced since I became a Christian. The proof is simply not there. Since the majority of true science these days is done in the name of evolutionism it gives a scientific aura to the theory, and certainly the habit of evolutionist thinking among genuine honest hardworking scientists makes the whole thing very hard to challenge, but many actual facts that supposedly support the theory in reality are better explained by the Biblical view, and there are a whole raft of facts that the theory doesn't even notice. I'm sure many of your opponents on this site as well as well-known creationists have presented all this evidence, but you simply cannot process the information. Yes I know you will ask for proof of these statements too, and who knows, if I stick around long enough I may actually produce some, but it aint gonna be immediately.
But the creationists who insist that creationism can be a valid scientific model, that in fact it's a better, more accurate explanation of the evidence, need to put up or shut up. When they make that claim, they're saying that they believe that creationism can pass the high bar required for scientific validity. So they should not complain when their model is put to that very same test and found wanting. Evolution, and every other scientific theory for that matter, was put to the same test. That's why we accept it.
I'm sure you believe that with all your heart. I believe creationism has not yet developed into a full blown scientific theory but that they definitely do have much good reasoning on their side and it will only get better over time. Me, if I were running a Christian school I'd channel talented kids -- true Christian Bible believers only of course -- into science classes where they'd have to think their way through both theories with respect to every piece of data that came in view until they were expert at both. This doesn't worry me because I KNOW the Bible is the truth and that eventually the evidence you want will be forthcoming.
For creationists to claim that it's unfair to put them to the same test is tantamount to asking for special treatment, and why should they be allowed to have it?
Well, I for one believe you are wrong and that creationism will eventually explain things much better and that your view of creationism is as I've said simple prejudice, although certainly well supported by what you take to be the best of evidence, as most prejudices are (they really are, and since you consider creationism in the same light, this same extension of grace would be in order that I've just extended to you -- call it sincere and perhaps hidebound belief but based on truly excellent reasons and wrong nevertheless).
Or, since that is your view and the view of most at this site, then Percy should give up on any desire for balance absolutely. It is amply explained by your own attitude. A sign should be posted on the home page warning creationists that the deck is stacked here. That would only be fair.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2005 9:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2005 1:24 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 170 of 305 (192410)
03-18-2005 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by crashfrog
03-18-2005 9:36 PM


Bible as evidence
But it's not some kind of impeachable source whose literal statements can always be taken as fact. No such source exists.
Thanks at least for acknowledging that it is evidence in SOME minuscule ways as even that much has been denied by a poster on this site. But of course I disagree completely with the above, depending on what you mean by "literal" (that's often a huge straw man). The actual message sent to the human race by the God who made us would certainly be the kind of source you say doesn't exist. Well, it doesn't exist to you because you don't believe it is divinely inspired. But to those who believe it is God's revelation to His errant human race, it is certainly the unimpeachable source you deny it to be.
But you believe that it is not utterly dogmatically. You will not allow the slightest credence to the opposing point of view. And beyond that you would denounce such a belief in contemptuous morally indignant tones. So much for "balance" at EvC forum.
We're not completely against the idea of the Bible, or statements written in the Bible, being evidence for or against a certain thing.
Always God's fallen humanity think they are the final judge of His word and His doings. Nothing new there. How patient He is to put up with us for so long.
But the scope of that evidence needs to be taken into account; for instance none of the authors of the Bible had knowledge of population genetics so the Bible has no credibility as a source on those matters.
Of course not. Who would ever claim it did?
Just as I wouldn't offer a copy of Pride and Prejudice as an authority on economics, the Bible is not a science textbook.
Nor does anyone claim it is, but it purports to present actual historical events as facts and taking them as the facts they are presented to be does certainly affect one's scientific viewpoint.
But just as I would offer the same novel as evidence of certain attitudes in England during the Naploeonic War, I might offer the Bible as evidence of certain attitutes among Jews and Christians in various times.
Yes, the typical intellectual approach. Problem is, the Bible ISN'T just the human-originated book you insist it is. It really IS the word of God. Can I prove it? Oh no doubt not. How did I come to believe it? That's a long story, but it had a lot to do with the simple genuineness of its authors in their role of witnesses of amazing events. They are not stupid, they are not primitive, they are not dishonest, they are not any of the things you have to believe they are to disbelieve what they wrote, and what they claim to have witnessed is amazing, outlandish by our modern preconceptions, but because of their simple honesty I know those amazing things really happened and the teachings are truly true. Believing the Bible to be simple truth after a lifetime of atheism is just about the biggest shock to the system imaginable. But a very happy shock, the most wonderful shock. But enough said on a subject that seems to offend people around here.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2005 11:33 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2005 11:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2005 9:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-18-2005 11:42 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 173 of 305 (192415)
03-18-2005 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by AdminJar
03-18-2005 11:39 PM


Re: This is NOT a debate thread.
Faith, CF, both of you. Drop it. This is not the place for debates. It is for requests to repoen closed threads.
Did think it odd that Percy posted that original post on this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by AdminJar, posted 03-18-2005 11:39 PM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 03-19-2005 8:22 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 174 of 305 (192416)
03-19-2005 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by AdminAsgara
03-18-2005 11:42 PM


Re: Bible as evidence
I would love to see this discussion taken to the Is It Science forum.
OK if you can move these posts over there I'll at least make a stab at it, but I may have said everything I feel like saying on the subject anyway.
Faith, I do understand your reluctance to take on yet another thread when you have been holding your ground against numerous opponents in the geology forum. I'm not sure what the Moose was planning when he gave that thread a break so you could catch up, but I think we could move that entire thread to the GD forum now and let you catch your breath and answer some of the outstanding posts.
Hm. Well, if answering those posts can be done there, fine by me.
As you read thru the posts maybe you could keep track of the members that you would like to debate. We have many talented professional and amateur geologists on this board...at least one that seems to be able to type with all four hooves.
I don't think I've encountered that one yet. Really, I don't know at this point exactly how far I want to take any of this. But I think moving that thread to the GD forum may be a very good idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-18-2005 11:42 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 268 of 305 (276339)
01-06-2006 10:19 AM


How about reopening "Did Jesus Exist?" I'm sure we're all cooled off by now.

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by AdminNWR, posted 01-06-2006 10:27 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 282 of 305 (314364)
05-22-2006 12:37 PM


9/11 thread
Request reopening the 9/11 thread, but perhaps with a clearer objective if there's any way to define it. In his closing it, Moose suggested that we think about why Bin Laden chose to attack the particular targets he did.
This seems to me an awfully narrow focus nobody would have much to say about. Creavolution who opened the thread said, in post #4, that he was "Just trying to get broad picture of the history of US foreign policy... why and how Al Queada(spelling?) came to exist and indeed hate the US."
And for the most part the thread stuck to that, although the usual side issues came up and derailed it temporarily.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by AdminNWR, posted 05-22-2006 12:40 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024